Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/2] Fix some kallsyms_lookup() vs rmmod races

[Paulo Marques]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paulo Marques <pmarques@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > looking at the problem from another angle: wouldnt this be something 
> > > that would benefit from freeze_processes()/unfreeze_processes(), and 
> > > hence no locking would be required?
> > I also considered this, but it seemed a little too "blunt" to stop 
> > everything (including completely unrelated processes and kernel 
> > threads) just to remove a module.
>
> 'just to remove a module' is very, very rare, on the timescale of most 
> kernel ops. Almost no distro does it. Furthermore, because we want to do 
> CPU-hotplug that way, we really want to make 
> freeze_processes()/unfreeze_processes() 'instantaneous' to the human - 
> and it is that already. (if it isnt in some case we can make it so)

Ok. I started to look at this approach and realized that module.c 
already does this:

> ....
> static int __unlink_module(void *_mod)
> {
> 	struct module *mod = _mod;
> 	list_del(&mod->list);
> 	return 0;
> }
>
> /* Free a module, remove from lists, etc (must hold module mutex). */
> static void free_module(struct module *mod)
> {
> 	/* Delete from various lists */
> 	stop_machine_run(__unlink_module, mod, NR_CPUS);
> ....

However stop_machine_run doesn't seem like the right thing to do, 
because users of the "modules" list don't seem to do anything to prevent 
preemption. Am I missing something?

Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only 
freezing processes that have voluntarily scheduled (opposed to just 
being preempted)?

--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

"The Computer made me do it."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/